Skip to main content

Full text of "A Model for Isotropic Crystal Growth from Vapor on a Patterned Substrate"

See other formats

A Model for Isotropic Crystal Growth from Vapor on a 

Patterned Substrate 

M. Khenner^ R.J. Braun^ and M.G. Mauk^ 

^ Department of Math. Sciences 
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 

^ AstroPower, Inc. 
Solar Park, Newark, DE 19716 

February 1, 2008 


We developed a consistent mathematical model for isotropic crystal growth on a sub- 
strate covered by the mask material with a periodic series of parallel long trenches 
where the substrate is exposed to the vapor phase. Surface diffusion and the flux of 
particles from vapor are assumed to be the main mechanisms of growth. A geometrical 
approach to the motion of crystal surface in two dimensions is adopted and nonlinear 
evolution equations are solved by a finite-difference method. The model allows the 
direct computation of the crystal surface shape, as well as the study of the effects due 
to mask regions of effectively nonzero thickness. As in experiments, lateral overgrowth 
of crystal onto the mask and enhanced growth in the region near the contact of the 
crystal and the mask is found, as well as the comparable crystal shapes. The growth 
rates in vertical and lateral directions are investigated. 

Keywords: selective epitaxy, vapor phase epitaxy, computer simulation. 

1 Introduction 

Selective area growth (SAG) of compound semiconductor thin films by (metalorganic) vapor 
phase epitaxy on patterned, masked substrates is a useful technique for fabricating semi- 
conductor devices The masked substrates may also be used as a diagnostic tool; the 
crystals grown in artificial geometries may indicate what would be successful or unsuccessful 
conditions for producing a desired product. The masked substrates may also be used simply 
for fundamental understanding of the crystal growth process • 

Generally, the method consists of the deposition of an epitaxial layer on defined areas 
of the substrate, which are exposed to the vapor phase via windows lithographically etched 


through a masking layer. For semiconductor device processing the mask is usually a dielectric 
material such as Si02 or Si3N4. In some cases, crystal growth on the mask is not desirable 
but, in reality, growth is observed there more often than not |^, |^, |]12[-|T^. The growth on 
the mask may occur via lateral overgrowth from the window in the mask or via nucleation 
on the mask; the narrower the mask the less likely is nucleation. Following 0, we will 
denote the lateral overgrowth phenomena as "epitaxial lateral overgrowth" (ELOG) in case 
of growth in narrow windows (< 10 /im in width). We refer to the selective growth on larger 
areas (hundreds of microns) as SAG. 

In SAG and ELOG the overall growth rate and uniformity of the epitaxial deposit have 
been reported to be strongly dependent upon the geometry of masked regions B as well as 

the total pressure |]10|, |TT], |1^ . In addition, the deposits are characterized by an enhanced 
growth at the perimeter of the windows adjacent to the mask (excellent photographs of the 
enhanced growth and the ELOG regions of GalnAs(P) and InP can be found in 0, for 
example). This suggests that material is supplied to the unmasked areas by surface diffusion 
along the mask as well as through direct diffusion from the vapor phase. It is generally 
concluded that diffusion lengths on the mask and on the surface of the epitaxial material 
such as GaAs, Si or GaN are very short (of the order of 1 fim). Under these conditions, 
the dominant lateral mass transport mechanism from the mask regions, for distances greater 
than a few (say 10) microns, is usually attributed to vapor-phase diffusion p|, H, 0, p-p 

However, surface diffusion usually dominates [|], |^, |rT[ |T^, |l8l for the growth in narrow 
windows bounded by narrow mask regions (< 10 microns) and it is this case (ELOG) that 
we are interested in studying. 

In our opinion, there exist two types of mathematical models for the selective-area growth. 
Type 1 models operate by solving Laplace's 0, ||, ^ or the diffusion equation ||20[ for the 
concentration of species in the vapor phase, subject to appropriate boundary conditions. 
The solution yields the concentration profiles in the vapor. Surface diffusion is ignored in 
these models. 

Type 2 models attempt to account for surface diffusion in several ways. In the 
steady-state diffusion equation for the concentration of species on the mask is added to the 

Laplace's equation in the vapor, while the diffusion on the crystal surface is ignored. In [17 

the time-dependent diffusion equation for the concentration of species on the crystal surface 

is considered, while the diffusion on the mask is ignored. In |1T8[, the steady-state diffusion 

equation describes diffusion on both the mask and crystal surfaces, again with appropriate 
boundary conditions. 

Neither Type 1 nor Type 2 models allow the overgrowth of the crystal on the mask (except 
10), nor do they account for the topography of the mask (i.e., the mask is considered to be 
of zero thickness). They also do not compute the crystal surface shape. As far as we know, 
the anisotropic selective-area growth has not been modeled. 

The goal of this paper is to give a physically and mathematically consistent description of 
epitaxial semiconductor crystal growth on a masked substrate in a surface diffusion-limited 
regime. The model is based on two partial differential equations; one for the crystal surface 
dynamics and one for the surface concentration of atoms on the mask. The substrate is 
exposed in the periodic series of parallel long trenches etched in the mask. Diffusion in the 
vapor phase is ignored since we consider ELOG in this study. Other simplifying assumptions 



The perturbations caused by selective-area epitaxy are independent of the orientation 
of the trenches with respect to the crystallographic axes of the substrate. In other 
words, in this study we ignore the anisotropy of the crystal growth (the results for the 
anisotropic growth will be reported elsewhere ||21||); 

• The diffusion coefficients are constants. It means that we have also assumed that the 
temperature is constant over the calculation window. The assumption of the constant 
temperature seems reasonable since we consider the case of the growth on narrow 
regions of the substrate (as explained above); 

• The (possible) interaction between densely arrayed growth regions is ignored. The 
numerical methodology we make use of in this study is not suitable for the latter 
problem. Other numerical methods (such as the level set method |^) should be 
employed to study the crystal surfaces originating from different growth regions beyond 
the point of their merging. 

The model is designed to allow the direct computation of the crystal surface shape. In 
addition, it allows to study effects due to mask regions of effectively nonzero thickness. 

The equations and added physical boundary conditions and initial conditions are nondi- 
mensionalized using physical constants estimated for experiments on ELOG and SAG of 
GaAs-type materials |23]-||2^. A finite difference method is used to find approximate solu- 

tions to the nondimensionalized, fully nonlinear parametric evolution equations which govern 
the crystal surface dynamics. The numerical solutions exhibit the crystal overgrowth onto 
the mask and enhanced growth in the region adjacent to the contact point (a contact line in 
three dimensions) where the mask and the crystal surfaces meet. 

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section]^ we formulate the mathematical model, 
list physical constants, provide details of nondimensionalization and find an approximate 
solution to the problem for diffusion of the concentration on the mask. In Section ^ we 
describe the numerical method we use to solve the nonlinear initial/boundary value problem 
for the crystal/vapor interface. In Section ^ we present the numerical results for the ELOG in 
the assumption of nonzero thickness of the mask. By setting mask thickness to zero we obtain 
more representative results in Section ^. Finally, in Section |^ we provide the qualitative 
comparison of the results obtained to the existing results we found in the literature and give 
conclusions and future directions for research. 

2 Mathematical model 

In this section, we describe the mathematical model which is an initial/boundary value prob- 
lem consisting of two partial differential equations, one describing the surface concentration 
of the atoms on the mask and the other involving the motion of the crystal/vapor interface 
originating from the exposed substrate. We also introduce physical constants and use them 
to nondimensionalize the problem. This model development was partly given in [Q. 


s[ = s:it'). 





s' = '.0 




-i (0,0) L 

Figure 1: A sketch of the mathematical situation. The free surface of 
the growing crystal (curve in two dimensions) is defined parametrically 
as y' = y'{s',t'), x' = x'{s',t'), < s' < S'{t'), where s' is the arc 
length along the curve and S' is the total arc length of the curve. The 
surface is sketched such that a crystal overgrowth onto the mask and 
the region of the enhanced growth ( "bump" ) near the contact point are 

2.1 Surface diffusion over the mask 

Our study is on the flat surface covered by the mask material with a periodic series of parallel 
long trenches where the substrate is exposed. We examine the growth behavior on a partial 
cross-section which is a line segment extending from the center line of one of the masked 
"plateaus" to the center of the next trench; a sketch of the mathematical situation is given 
in Figure ^ We assume the surface behavior is constant in the perpendicular direction to 
legitimize this two-dimensional study. 

The interval —i<x'<0 corresponds to the zone where the thin mask is located. Here 
we study the surface diffusion of the concentration rim = nm{x', t') of atoms on the horizontal 
part of the mask not yet occupied by the growing crystal: 

where, Jg represents uniform flux of atoms from a vapor and impinging on the mask. The 
term rim/ provides the concentration of atoms leaving the surface to go into the vapor. The 
constant is the mean residence time on the step. Finally, is the surface diffusivity 
of the atomic concentration on the mask. Note that (|2.1|) has been given in [^, for 


Appended to (|2.1| ) is a symmetry boundary condition 



-i,t') = 0. (2.2) 

We assume that the atoms close to the crystal will be absorbed quickly; thus we take the 
boundary condition at the contact point to be a perfect sink: 

n^{x:it'),t') = 0. (2.3) 

An initial condition is also needed to define this part of the problem completely, say 

n^(x',0)=0, -i<x'<0. (2.4) 

To summarize, there exist two options for every atom arriving to the horizontal part of the 
macroscopic step which represents the mask at —i < x' < 0: it can either desorb back into 
the vapor phase or be transported by surface diffusion from left to right. The drifting atoms 
are incorporated in the crystal at the contact point {x'^,y'^) as they meet the crystal on the 
way. At the initial stage of the growth the atoms need to diffuse over the mask corner prior 
to being incorporated in the crystal. We don't study surface diffusion along the vertical part 
of the step and assume that atoms diffused over the corner are incorporated in the growing 
crystal instantly. This approximation is good if the mask thickness is much less than the 
mask region width, that is iihm ^ ^ (in ELOG the ratio hm/C- is usually < 0.1 0, |§, 0) Hi 

EH) [HZI- SAG this ratio is so small that the mask can be considered to be of vanishing 
thickness). Both parts of the mask are assumed to be physically equivalent. As a particular 
consequence, the constant equilibrium angle ^(7,7^) which the crystal surface forms with 
the mask at the contact point (as a result of the assumed thermodynamic equilibria in the 
vicinity of the junction 7 and 7^ are the surface energies of the crystal and of the mask 

respectively) should be the same and independent of the contact point position on the step, 
ref. Figure |[ 

2.2 Model for the crystal surface 

We now turn to the formulation of the equations and the associated boundary and initial 
conditions for the motion of the interface between the crystal that is built-up from the 
substrate on the interval < x' < L and the vapor. The interface is allowed to move above 
the mask on the interval — £ < x' < 0. This development of the model closely parallels that 

of MuUins in his now classic study of grain boundary grooving. 

The interface moves via two mechanisms. The first is from a fiux of atoms to the interface 
from the vapor; this fiux is normal to the interface. This contribution to the normal velocity 
of the interface is proportional to the jump in the chemical potential across the interface, 

MA{^^l-^i,). (2.5) 

Here M is the mobility of the interface and A = dug / 9/i is the change of surface concentration 
rig with chemical potential /i; /ic is chemical potential of the crystal surface and is given by 

/ic = /ioo + ^7^^) (2-6) 


where 7 is the surface energy of the crystal, is the atomic volume, k is the curvature of the 
crystal surface and n^o is the reference value of the chemical potential for the crystal with a 
flat surface, fiy is the chemical potential of the vapor and it may be written as /iy = fiy+fJ'oo- 

Comparison with reveals that A plays a role identical to Ug/kT, where Ug is the surface 
concentration, k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is the absolute temperature. 

The second contribution is from the surface diffusion of atoms along the interface; the 
current of atoms Js is proportional to the gradient of the chemical potential along the surface. 
For the curve in the plane, the surface gradient is the derivative with respect to arc length, 

Js = -AD^^^J^. (2.7) 

The contribution to the rate of increase in the atoms per unit area (proportional to the 
normal velocity) is proportional to the surface divergence of this flux; for the curve, we have 


The net rate of increase in the number of atoms per unit area (or the time rate of change 
of the concentration) may be written as V^/Q, where the Q is the atomic volume and is 
the normal velocity. Combining the normal and surface diffusion contributions results in 

+ M{fiv - n-fn) . (2. 

The parametric evolution equations for the crystal surface are given in the Section p. 2.1 

Next, we describe physical boundary and initial conditions which will be used for the com- 

First, we assume the following obvious conditions hold for the contact point location 
x'^,yl (see Figure I): 

x: = 0, if 0<y:<h^, (2.9) 

y'^ = hm, if -i < x'^ < 0. 

These conditions place the contact point on the mask. 
At x' = L we assume the symmetry conditions, 

^{L,t') = and |^(AtO=0. (2.10) 

In (|2.10|) , the second condition is effectively the condition of no atomic flux at x = L [27|. 

Unless otherwise noted, the crystal surface is initially a horizontal line even with the 

y'(x',0) = 0, 0<x'<L. (2.11) 

After the short time the crystal rearranges to form an equilibrium angle 6 with the mask 
at the contact point: 

t'>0: ^\{<,yi) = tan^, if - £ < < < and y', = h^, (2.12) 

= {0 - 90°), if x: = and < < h^. 


We also match the fluxes from the atoms on the mask surface moving from left-to-right 
with the flux onto the growing crystal by requiring that 

= ADWn7|^«,0- (2.13) 
2.2.1 Evolution equations for the crystal surface 

We take a geometrical approach to the problem of the motion of an open curve (crystal 
surface) 7(t') along it's normal vector fleld with a speed function of curvature and some of 
it's derivatives. 

Let x'(r, t') be the position vector which, at time t', parametrizes 7(t') by r, < r < R{t') 
(r is not necessarily the arc length). With K,{r,t') as the curvature at x'(r, t'), the equations 
of motion are 

n(r,t') ■ ^^^^ = V:Xnir,t'),Kr,...l (2.14) 

x'(r, 0) = 7(0) prescribed, 

where n[r,t') = — i dy'/dr -|- j dx'/dr is the unit normal vector at x'(r, t') and i and j are 
the unit vectors along x and |/— axis respectively. 

Written in terms of the coordinates x'(r, t') = (x'(r, t'),y'{r, t')), an equivalent formulation 



dt' " g' dr 


dy' ^1 1 dx' 


is metric function (the metric function measures the "stretch" of the parametrization). The 

ds = g'{r,t) dr (2.17) 

can be used to cast the normal velocity (|2.8|) in terms of r. The expression for the curvature 
in terms of x', y' is 

1 / d'^y' dx' d'^x' dy'\ 

[g'Y \ dr"^ dr dr'^ dr 


2.3 Physical parameters 

The physical constants listed in Table |I| are representative for ELOG of GaAs-type materials 
at temperatures near 650 K. 

Since the parameter space is large, the parameters in Table were flxed in the course of 
our study of ELOG. We only investigated the influence of the four geometrical parameters, 
L, i, hm and 6. These parameters (except 6) can be controlled in the experiment given the 
epitaxial material and growth conditions; changing materials changes 6. We varied L, i, hm 
and 6 within the intervals listed in Table El. 


Table 1: Physical constants. 





Atomic flux from vapor 

10^^ Atoms/ (cm^ -sec) 

Mean residence time of atoms on mask 

1 sec 

Diffusivity on mask 

5 X 10"^ cm^/sec 

Diffusivity on crystal surface 

2 X 10"^ cm^/sec 


Atomic Volume 

2 X 10-23 cm^/Atom 


Surface energy 

10^ ergs/cm^ 


Change in concentration/Change in chemical potential 

2 X 10^^ Atoms2/(erg-cm2) 


Chemical potential in the vapor 

3 X 10-^3 erg • atom 



10 sec-^ 

Table 2: Geometrical parameters. 



Value /Units 




Width of substrate region 
Width of mask region 
Height of mask above substrate 
Contact angle 

10"'' - 10-3 cm (1 - 10 iim) 
10-^ - 10-3 cm (1 - 10 /xm) 
- 1.25 X 10-^ cm (0 - 1.25 /xm) 
0° - 180° 


Table 3: Nondimensional parameters. 



Approximate Value (for L 

5 /im) 



y/a tanh(y^(i) 

4 X 10-1 
3 X 10"^ 
1.6 X 10-6 

1.2 X 10-2 

8 X 10-^ 







2.4 Nondimensionalization and diffusion problem over the mask 

To complete this section we now describe the nondimensionalization used and solve the 
problem for the concentration on the mask. Table ^ has all the nondimensional parameters. 

As above, we first handle the diffusion problem over the mask. Letting 

X — Lx^ t — 7 — rt, cLlld. Tim — '^m J nU 


we can rewrite (PTT|)-(P^) as 

-^ = ^ + a{l-u), -d<x<x,{t) (2.19) 

with boundary conditions 

(-d,t) = and u(xJt),t) = (2.20) 


and an initial condition 

m(x,0)=0. (2.21) 

When the contact point position is fixed at x^,{t) = 0, an exact solution to the problem 
( p.l9| ) - ( p.21| ) may be found 0] . In that case, a constant flux may be found from the steady 
state solution to ( p. 191 ) (with a;*(t) = 0). This constant flux is given by 

— ^^{x) = —\fa (^sinh(A/aa;) + tanh(v^(i) cosh(yaa;)^ ; (2.22) 

At a; = we have 

:(0) = -v^tanh(v^ci). (2.23) 




The value of /„ 

I du 



is estimated to be 2.18 for the parameters in Table ^. When 

the contact point moves, the same steady flux is not available; however, we will assume a 
constant flux from the mask at the contact point for the rest of this paper. The flux 
will be used as a boundary condition for the evolution equations of the growing crystal. The 
approximation just described is validated in [^, where we numerically solve the full surface 
diffusion problem on the mask and demonstrate that the contact point indeed propagates 
steadily along the mask. 

We also can estimate the effect of neglecting surface diffusion along the vertical part of 
the step. If we replace d with d + hm the expression ( ^^.231 ) for the steady flux at the 
contact point, the resulting change in will be very small since hm ^ d for ELOG (ref. 
Table I). 

To nondimensionalize ( |2.8| )-( |2T3| ), ( p.l5| )-( p.l8| ) we make the following variable changes, 
again referring to Table ^ for the definitions of the nondimensional parameters: 

y' = Ly, X = Lx, s' = Ls, g' = Lg, hr. 
The evolution equations then become 



dt ~ 



1 dy_ 
g 9r' 


L-^K and t' 





1 dx 
g or 

where the normal velocity is given by 

K = eD- 

1 d (I OK' 

g dr \g dr 
and the metric function and the curvature by 

+ J~5K 



( dx 



1 / d'^y dx d'^x dy^ 



We now have that x = 1 corresponds to R{t) and the contact point (x*,?/*) corresponds 
to r = 0, see Figure ffl. The boundary conditions are: 





dy/dr , 




r = 0,t)=tan^, if 

= 0,t) = tan (0-90°) 

IdK , 
g dr 

- d < X* < and = hm, 
if = and Q < y* <hr. 







The initial condition is 

?/(r, 0) = 0, x(r, 0) = r, < r < 1. (2.30) 
And, the nondimensional coordinates of the contact point satisfy 

x, = 0, if < < h^, (2.31) 

y* = hm, if — d < < 0. 

3 Numerical method 

Evolution of the crystal surface is solved by a finite-difference method. marker particles are 
placed along the surface and advanced according to equations ( |2.24| ). Centered, second order 
accurate and conservative finite difference approximations are used for the spatial derivatives 
in ( |2.24| ); one-sided finite differences are used where needed to compute derivatives at the 
boundaries r = and r = R{t). This yields a set of coupled ordinary differential equations 
for the motion of marker particles. The time derivatives are approximated by the forward 
Euler method. 

The computational cycle consists of the following steps: 

• Given the coordinates {x, y) of marker particles at time t, compute K (including 
go and Kq), the derivatives of curvature and then Vn in the interior points. Kq is 
computed by imposing the boundary condition (|2.29|) ; 

Using Euler scheme, compute coordinates (x, y) of the interior marker particles at time 
t + At, where At is the time step; 

Taking into account ( |2.31| ) and using 2nd order accurate one-sided finite differences. 

compute coordinates x*,?/,,, of the contact point at time t + At from 

• Remesh, i.e. redistribute the marker particles along the surface in order to preserve 
uniform spacing. With this purpose, the parametric cubic spline representation of the 
curve is constructed. These splines are then used to redistribute the marker particles 
at evenly spaced arc lengths (also, the code has an option to dynamically increase the 
number of markers along the surface once it becomes too elongated). 

The remeshing justifies the proper choice of the parametrization - it ensures the parameter 
is the arc length, r = s. Therefore, r lies in the time-dependent interval [0, S{t)], where S{t) is 
the total arc length of the curve. The remeshing procedure is computationally expensive but 
it ensures the smoothness of the surface for the entire simulation period. With this procedure, 
almost no "stretch" of the parametrization occurs and the metric function becomes unity 
everywhere in [0, >S'(t)], except the very narrow region near s = where the boundary pollutes 
the data. However, this error decreases rapidly with the grid refinement (see Figure 0(b)). 
The surface rearranges quickly at the junction point to satisfy the equilibrium contact angle 
9 with the mask at the contact point. 



N = 100 

-1 -0.98-0.96 -0.94-0.92 -0.9 -0.88 -0.86 -0.84-0.82 -0.8 



1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 

N = 100 


N= 175 --- 

N = 250 ---- 

N = 500 


1 --'li/^'^^y — "= 

1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 


0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 

X s 

Figure 2: (a): Crystal surface at t = 90, computed with different number of marker particles 
(ref. Figure ^(b) for the values of parameters); (b): Corresponding metric functions g{s). 

To proove the validity of the numerical code, we made a series of runs with = 
100, 175, 250, 500 and, in Figure ^ plotted the surface profiles near the contact point and 
the corresponding metric functions (at t = 90, when the overgrowth on the mask is almost 
completed) for the case of Figure Kb). The inspection of Figure ^ suggests that N = 250 
marker particles provide accurate enough resolution of the curve; the difference in the x- 
coordinates of the contact point for N = 250 and N = 500 is 0.0085, and the deviation of 
g{0) from unity for = 250 is 1.6%. Thus, the computations presented in the Sections ^ 
and ^ were done with = 250 marker particles. We verified all the results by performing 
runs with = 500. 

As a further check on the numerical code, we set 5 = J = in (|2.25|) , /m = in (|2.29| ), 
hm = in ( [^.281 ), ( |2.31D and computed (for different contact angles 9) the evolution of a 
retracting solid film step. We obtained the same surface profiles as in where the latter 
problem is considered in detail (comparison not shown). 

4 Numerical results for mask layer of nonzero thick- 

As an example of the crystal surface evolution. Figure ^ shows the surface profiles for the 
contact angles 6 = 30° and 6 = 150° at different values of the nondimensional time (note 
the different scales along x and y-axis). 

At later times, the curve in Figure |](a) bends in the vicinity of the contact point, see Figure 
^. This indicates that the crystal prefers not to "wet" the mask, i.e. the contact angles 
larger than 90° are preferred (as in Figure 0(b)). The contact angle is held constant along 
the mask surface during the computation except at the corner of the mask; for further detail 
see below. 

Some comments should be made about the initial stage of the evolution from zero-level 
initial condition ( p.30| ) and about the numerical treatment of the curve propagation over the 





0.05 - 




— I — 




0.6 0.8 







— I — 




0.6 0.8 

Figure 3: The evolving crystal surface, (a): = 30°, (b): = 150°. L = £ = 5 /xm, hm = 
0.5 /im. The surface profiles are dumped every 2500 time steps. The time labels correspond 
to the time at which the last profile is dumped. In (a) and (b), 9 is the angle between the 
mask and the interior of the crystal at the contact point. The profiles shown at t = 10 
(fourth from the bottom in (a) and (b)) have the contact point exactly on the mask corner 
where 6 readjusts, ref. the discussion below. 

step corner. First, note that initial condition ( |2.30D does not match the boundary condition 

( p.28| ). This implies that a singularity exists at (x = 0, ?/ = 0) at t = 0. This singularity does 
not present a barrier in solving the system numerically. Physically, the equilibrium angle 
should be formed instantaneously compared to the time needed for the evolution of the 
surface. We are not concerned with the details of this instance. Our numerical experiments 
reveal that for some values of nondimensional parameters the contact point initially retracts 
in the unphysical domain ?/ < (below the substrate, case hm > 0) or in the domain x > 
(on the substrate, case hm = 0). If this happens we replace the initial curve ( |2.30| ) with the 

hyperbolic tangent curve having the desired contact angle 9 with the mask at the contact 
point. For instance, in the case of Figure ^(a) this curve may be 

y{r, 0) =yo(^- tanh ^r^^^^^ ^ , x(r, 0) = r, < r < 1 (4.1) 

where, yo gives the small initial elevation of the surface at x = 0. Similarly, in the case of 
Figure ^(b) the initial condition may be 

/ tan^^\ 

y{r, 0) = yo tanh r , x{r, 0) = r, < r < 1 (4.2) 

\ yo J 

where, yo gives the small initial elevation of the surface at x = 1. 

Similar reasoning is applied to the step corner point. Numerically, the corner point is 
singular in the sense that the contact angle is not well defined there. One way to deal with 
this situation is to instantly readjust the angle the curve forms with the upper mask surface 
to the equilibrium value once the contact point reaches the step corner. However, such 


0.25 - 
0.2 - 
0.15 - 

0.1 I 1 1 ' 

-0.5 -0.45 -0.4 -0.35 -0.3 


Figure 4: Snapshot of the crystal surface shown in Figure ^(a) 
at t = 50. 

instant readjustment causes a short retraction into the unphysical domain [x > 0,y = hm). 
To avoid this retraction, we pin the contact point at the corner and allow the contact angle 
with respect to the upper mask surface to readjust to the equilibrium contact angle there. 
Once the desired angle is reached, the contact point resumes motion along the mask. The 
time interval needed for the readjustment is vanishingly small compared to the characteristic 
times of the problem. These times are as follows. 

• Ti = the time needed for the "bump" on the surface to disappear. Ti is an important 
quantity since in semiconductor device manufacture one may not want to grow the 
crystal with deformed surface; also, Ti is interesting since it provides some measure of 
surface diffusion's effect on the evolution. 

• T2 = the time needed for the contact point to reach the point {x = —d, y = hm) on the 
mask i.e., reach the end of the mask region. 

• T3 = the time needed for the contact point to reach the step corner (only in the case 
hm > 0). 

We also define: 

• the normalized contact point position as the ratio of the distance (along the x-axis, 
from the contact point to the origin) to the mask region width, i.e. \x^:\/d] 

• the normalized maximum growth thickness as the ratio of the maximal elevation of the 
surface (the "bump" height) to the height of the crystal at x = 1. 

Figure ^(a) shows the normalized contact point position vs. contact angle at t = Ti. 
The crystal overgrowth onto the mask increases as the contact angle increases (compare to 
Figure 0(a),(b) where, at the same times, the overgrowth is approximately the same but the 
"bump" is more pronounced for 6 = 150°, therefore resulting in larger overgrowth at t = Ti). 
The value of Ti depends on the relative tolerance chosen to measure the disappearence of 


the "bump"; for instance, with the relative tolerance 0.005 used to compute the curve in 
Figure H(a) and for 6 = 150° (case of Figure Kb)) the value for Ti is 73.3. 

Figure |^(b) shows the normalized maximum growth thickness vs. mask thickness at t = T3 
for contact angles 6 > 90°. The graphs for contact angles 6 < 90° are not shown since, as 
Figure |^(a) suggests, the maximum elevation of the surface can occur at the contact point as 
well as at the "bump" - thus sometimes making it difficult to distinguish between these two 
cases. The normalized maximum growth rate decreases with the mask thickness because the 
"bump" smooths out as the crystal grows vertically. The value of T3 depends on the mask 
thickness; for the case of Figure H(b), T3 = 9.5. 


100 120 140 160 180 


Figure 5: (a): Normalized contact point position vs. contact angle at t = Ti. L = i = 
5 /im, hjji = 0.5 yUm. (b): Normalized maximum growth thickness vs. mask thickness at 
t = T3 for different contact angles; L,i are the same as in (a). 

The numerical experiments described in this section and in Section |^ were run on a 
single 300 MHz R12000 CPU on an SGI Origin 2000 Workstation. The computational times 
depend strongly on hm,L and i but they never exceeded 1 hour. 

5 Numerical results for mask layer of zero thickness 

In this section, we set hm to zero in the boundary conditions (|2.28|) , (|2.31| ) and again solve 
the resulting initial/boundary value problem for the evolution equations ( |2.24| ) numerically. 

Figure |^(a) shows the example of the crystal surface at time Ti for different contact angles. 
The corresponding curvatures as functions of the arc length are shown in Figure |^(b). The 
spikes on the graphs of K{s) correspond to the regions in the vicinity of the contact point 
on the graphs of the surface where curves are bent to satisfy the equilibrium contact angle 
boundary condition. The inflection points located at x ~ 0.08, 0.11, 0.12 (immediately 
after the smoothed "bump") on the graphs of the surface for 6 = 30°, 90°, 150° respectively 
correspond to s ~ 0.39, 0.84, 1.33 (the last point not shown) on the graphs of K{s). 

In Figures ^ ^ we study the dependence of the ELOG characteristics on widths of the 
mask and the substrate regions, i and L. 




^ 0.4 


,, '••'9=150° Vi = 6^.9"" ' 



9 = 90°, Tj = 40.8 


9 = 30°, T| = 17.6 

1 \ 

\ 1 1 1 


-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 


0.4 0.6 

Figure 6: (a): Graphs of the crystal surface at times the "bump" is considered to have 
disappeared, for different contact angles. L = £ = 5 /im, hm = 0. (b): Curvatures of the 
curves in (a) as functions of the arc length. 

Figure |^ shows the dependence of the normalized position of the contact point on i and 
L. As in the case of the mask layer of nonvanishing thickness, the overgrowth onto the 
mask is larger for larger contact angles. For a given contact angle, the overgrowth decreases 
with increasing ^ and L, with the dependence of the overgrowth in Figure |^(b) on L being 
approximately linear. Note that the variation in ^ has stronger impact on the overgrowth 
than the variation in L. Figure |^(a) suggests that wider mask regions will result in the 
saturation of the overgrowth. This conclusion is consistent with the model. Indeed, the 
surface diffusion flux from the mask onto the growing crystal is the driving force for ELOG, 
with another component of the driving force being the constant flux of atoms from the vapor 
on the crystal surface. The flux on the mask is given by ( |2.23| ) and it saturates as d = l/L 
increases (the close-to-linear dependence of the ELOG on L can't be easily explained since 
all nondimensional parameters of the problem are functions of L, ref. Table 0). 

Figure |^ shows the similar dependence of the normalized maximum growth thickness on 
^ and L and the same explanation applies to the curves in Figure §|(a). It is interesting that 
the characteristic time T2 does not depend on the contact angle. That is, having L fixed, 
the time needed for ELOG over the distance C. is independent on the ratio of the crystal to 
the mask surface energies (for the case of Figure H(a), T2 = 87). 

Film thickness at the center of the substrate region {x = L) as a function of I and L is 
shown in Figure ^ Film thickness increases with £, and the rate of the increase decreases 
as the contact angle increases (Figure P(a)). Film thickness linearly decreases with L (also 
with decreasing rate with respect to the increase of the contact angle. Figure |^(b)). 

Film thickness at the center of the substrate region increases essentially linear in t', with 
rate ~ 1 /im/min. There is no dependence of the growth at substrate center on the contact 




123456789 10 23456789 10 

1, (im L, |j,m 

Figure 7: (a): Normalized position at t = Ti of the contact point vs. mask region width, 
for different contact angles. L = 5 fim, = 0. (b): Normalized position (at t = Ti) of the 
contact point vs. substrate region width, for different contact angles, i = 5 /im, = 0. 
For the representative values of Ti refer to Figure |§(a). 

6 Discussion and conclusions 

We developed a model for the epitaxial semiconductor crystal growth on a masked substrate 
in a surface diffusion-limited growth regime. 

In this model, the overgrowth of the crystal on the mask (as well as growth in vertical 
direction) is a dynamic process which depends on many factors, such as the height of the 
mask above the substrate, the widths of masked and open regions, the ratio of mask to 
substrate surface tensions, etc. Unlike Type 1 and Type 2 models cited in the Introduction, 
our model does not assume the overgrowth or lack of the overgrowth a priori, while in these 
models the assumption is made based on results of specific experiment which the model aims 
to describe. Despite the fact that numerical results presented in Sections ^ and ^ always 
exhibit the overgrowth, the trial runs with anisotropy included in the model indicated that 
the overgrowth could be suppressed by selecting the degree of anisotropy and the fast growth 
directions [PT|]. 

The predictions of the modeling compare favorably to the results obtained by other 
authors. The region of enhanced growth near the contact point ("bump") shown in Figure 
^ supports the experimental and theoretical evidence for the surface diffusion on the mask 
to contribute strongly to such enhanced growth [|, ^, [0-[|l9]. Eventually, the "bump" 

is smoothed out by the surface diffusion on the crystal surface. 

The profiles of the crystal surface we obtained show close resemblance to experimental 
profile in Figure 5(b) of and to experimental profiles in Figures 4 and 5 of |]^. To make such 
comparison, our computed profiles should be truncated, at some given time, with imaginary 
vertical line passing to the left of the "bump" maxima. The right part of the profile is then 
shifted to the right so that the left endpoint stays on the vertical line at a; = (to account 
for the lack of the overgrowth in the works cited). The detailed comparison with these and 
other experimental works is, however, impossible since the natural anisotropy of the crystal 







e = 120 

6 = 90 

— I — 

9 10 

Figure 8: (a): Normalized maximum growth thickness (at t = T2) vs. mask region width, 
for different contact angles. L = 5 fim, = 0. (b): Normalized maximum growth thickness 
(at t = T2) vs. substrate region width, for different contact angles, i = 5 fim, hm = 0. 

growth is not accounted for in this study. 

The linear dependence of the normahzed maximum growth thickness and of the film thick- 
ness at the center of the substrate region on the width of the substrate region L (ref. Figures 
11(b), 11(b)) was found experimentally in [0 for the surface diffusion dominated growth. Also, 
Figure |^(a) shows that the film thickness at the center of the substrate region monotonically 
increases with the mask width £ due to the increase of the lateral source supply . This result 
is well known [^, |TT], |T^. Again, similar dependence was found experimentally in [TTI for the 
surface diffusion dominated growth. Note that the normalized maximum growth thickness 
in Figure ^(a) decreases with i despite that the film thickness at x = L increases with i. 
The reason is that surface diffusion along the crystal surface has a strong smoothing effect 
in the regions of the surface where the curvature is large. 

Future directions for the research include considering anisotropic growth, the diffusion in 
the vapor and the application of external fields. The first of these results is already in hand, 
and will be reported elsewhere Ell . 


M. Khenner and R.J. Braun were supported by NSF Grants DMS-9631287 and DMS- 
9722854. This problem is an outgrowth of one studied in the 15th Annual Mathematical 
Problems in Industry Workshop held in 1999. The authors thank G. Berensel, K. Brattkus, 
L.P. Cook, A.D. Fitt, D.A. French, S. Kim, J.R. King, A.A. Lacey, J. Pelesko, D. Petrasek, 
C. Please and A. Roosen for helpful conversations. M.G. Mauk wishes to acknowledge sup- 
port of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization under Small Business Innovation Research 
contract DASG60-92-C-004. 











1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

e = 150° 

6 = 90° 

1 1 

6 = 30° 
1 1 1 1 1 



B 4 

2 3.5 

I 2.5 
S 2 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

6= 150° 

6 = 30° 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

5 6 
1, M-m 


6 7 
L, |lm 


Figure 9: (a): Thickness at substrate center (at t = Ti, ref. Figure ^(a)) vs. mask region 
width, for different contact angles. L = 5 fim, = 0. (b): Thickness at substrate center 
at t = Ti vs. substrate region width, for different contact angles, i = 5 fim, hm = 0. 


[1] M. Aoki, H. Sano, M. Suzuki, M. Takahashi, K. Uomi and A. Takai, Electron. Letters 
27 (1991) 2138. 

[2] H. Okumura, N. Saito, J. -I. Kusano, T. Aida, F. Sato, K. Takizawa Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 
37 (1998) L484. 

[3] E.J. Thrush, J.P. Stagg, M.A. Gibbon, R.E. Mallard, B. Hamilton, J.M. Jowett and 
E.M. Allen, Materials Science and Engineering B21 (1993) 130. 

[4] D.A. French, J. Pelesko and R.J. Braun, Final Reports of the 15th Annual Workshop 
on Mathematical Problems in Industry, University of Delaware (1999). 

[5] M.A. Gibbon, J.R Stagg, C.G. Cureton, E.J. Thrush, C.J. Jones, R.E. Mallard, R.E. 
Pritchard, N. Collis and A. Chew, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 8 (1993) 998. 

[6] C.C. Mitchell, M.E. Coltrin, J. Han, Journal of Crystal Growth 222 (2001) 144. 

[7] T. Sasaki, M. Kitamura, I. Mito Journal of Crystal Crowth 132 (1993) 435. 

[8] B. Korgel, R.F. Hicks, Journal of Crystal Crowth 151 (1995) 204. 

[9] D.G. Coronell, K.F. Jensen, Journal of Crystal Crowth 114 (1991) 581. 

[10] O. Kayser, Journal of Crystal Crowth 107 (1991) 989. 

[11] Y. Sakata, Y. Inomoto, K. Komatsu, Journal of Crystal Crowth 208 (2000) 130. 

[12] O.-K. Nam, T.S. Zheleva, M.D. Bremser, R.F. Davis, Journal of Electronic Materials 
27(4) (1998) 233. 


[13] P. Fini, H. Marchand, J. P. Robertson, S.P. DenBaars, U.K. Mishra, J.S. Speck, Journal 
of Crystal Growth 209 (2000) 581. 

[14] D. Marx, Z. Kawazu, T. Nakayama, Y. Mihashi, T. Takami, M. Nunoshita, T. Ozeki, 
Journal of Crystal Growth 289/190 (1998) 87. 

[15] K. Hiruma, T. Haga, M. Miyazaki, Journal of Crystal Growth 102 (1990) 717. 

[16] S. Sudo, Y. Yokoyama, T. Nakazaki, K. Mori, K. Kudo, M. Yamaguchi, T. Sasaki, 
Journal of Crystal Growth 221 (2000) 189. 

[17] J.E. Greenspan, X. Zhang, N. Puetz, B. Emmerstorfer, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 18(2) 
(2000) 648. 

[18] T. Fujii, M. Ekawa, S. Yamazaki, Journal of Crystal Growth 146 (1995) 475. 

[19] M.F. Zybura, S.H. Jones, J. Electron. Mater. 23(10) (1994) 1055. 

[20] L.J.M. BoUen, C.H.J. Van Den Brekel, H.K. Kuiken, Journal of Crystal Growth 51 
(1981) 581. 

[21] M. Khenner, R.J. Braun, M.G. Mauk, in preparation. 
[22] S. Osher, J. A. Sethian, J. Comput. Phys. 79 (1988) 12. 

[23] T. Nishinaga, Handbook of Crystal Growth 3 (1994) 666 (ed. D.T.J. Hurle, Elsevier 

[24] A.A. Chernov, Handbook of Crystal Growth 3 (1994) 458 (ed. D.T.J. Hurle, Elsevier 
Science) . 

[25] T. Nishinaga, X.Q. Shen, Advances in the Understanding of Crystal Growth Mecha- 
nisms (1997) 117 (ed. T. Nishinaga et al., Elsevier Science). 

[26] C. Herring, Structure and Properties of Solid Surfaces 5 (1952) (ed. R. Corner and C.S. 
Smith, The University of Chicago Press). 

[27] W.W. MuUins, J. Appl. Phys. 28(3) (1957) 333. 

[28] J.A. Sethian, Comm. Math. Phys. 101 (1985) 4. 

[29] H. Wong, P.W. Voorhees, M.J. Miksis, S.H. Davis, Acta Mater. 48 (2000) 1719.